In June
2010, a federal grand jury indicted Ramon F. Flores and his
co-defendants for conspiring to “possess with the
intent to distribute and distribute 5 kilograms or more of a
mixture or substance containing cocaine” (Count I).
Superseding Indictment 1, ECF No. 156. After Flores proceeded
to trial, a jury convicted him of Count I. Verdict 1, ECF No.
699. He was sentenced to imprisonment for 360 months, a
supervised release term of five years, and a special
assessment of $100.00. Am. J. 3-6, ECF No. 883.

The
United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed
his conviction. Order 9/29/2014 5, ECF No. 968. Flores then
petitioned the United States Supreme Court for a writ of
certiorari. Notice Pet. Cert. 1, ECF No. 987. The Court
denied Flores a writ of certiorari. Denial Cert. 1, ECF No.
1003.

On
February 6, 2017, the magistrate judge issued a report and
recommendation on Flores's motions to vacate his sentence
(“the February 2017 report and recommendation”).
R. & R. 1, ECF No. 1080. In the February 2017 report and
recommendation, the magistrate judge recommended that this
Court deny Flores's original motion to vacate and amended
motion to vacate the sentence. Id. He also
recommended that this Court deny issuance of a certificate of
appealability. Id.

Flores
filed three objections to the February 2017 report and
recommendation. Obj. R. & R., ECF No. 1081. For the
reasons stated below, the court will overrule Flores's
objections to the February 2017 report and recommendation.

II.
Standard of Review

The
Court makes a de novo determination of the proposed findings
or recommendations to which Flores objects. See 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Crim. P. 59(b)(3).

III.
Discussion

Flores
objects to three determinations made by the magistrate judge
in the February 2017 report and recommendation. First, Flores
objects to the magistrate judge's recommendation that his
ineffective assistance of counsel claims be denied. Obj. R.
& R. 3-4, ECF No 1081. Flores contends that his defense
counsel's decision to wait two days before his trial date
to move to exclude untimely disclosed government evidence,
his defense counsel's failure to keep him informed of
developments in his case, the discrepancy between the number
of documents submitted by the government and those received
by defense counsel, and defense counsel's question to the
presiding judge, “Am I required to challenge it before
trial?” contradict the magistrate judge's
determination that his trial counsel's allegedly
deficient performance did not prejudice him. Id.

In his
original motion to vacate his sentence, Flores also states:

In the instant case defense counsel was under a duty to
launch a full investigation in order to locate all possible
data that would have allowed him to present to sentencing
court the results of his investigation and research. If the
failure in any way was caused by defense counsel not
following that line of investigation, or not visiting his
...

Our website includes the first part of the main text of the court's opinion.
To read the entire case, you must purchase the decision for download. With purchase,
you also receive any available docket numbers, case citations or footnotes, dissents
and concurrences that accompany the decision.
Docket numbers and/or citations allow you to research a case further or to use a case in a
legal proceeding. Footnotes (if any) include details of the court's decision. If the document contains a simple affirmation or denial without discussion,
there may not be additional text.

Buy This Entire Record For
$7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.